Successful Transition from Math Eight to Math I

1. Successful Transition from Math Eight to Math I Ya'ShontiBridgers, Courtney Farmer, Jessica Hathaway, Anthony Meadows, Alicia Reynolds, Rashida, Williams, Briana Williams (Elizabeth City State University ) Mentor: Dr. Darnell Johnson (Elizabeth City State University ) Figure 1: Survey Instrument Figure 2: Questionnaire Instrument ABSTRACT North Carolina adopted the North Carolina Common Core State Standards (NCCCSS) in K-12 Mathematics and K-12 English Language Arts on June 2, 2010 that were released by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. With the adoption of these state-led education standards, North Carolina is in the first group of states to embrace clear and consistent goals for learning to prepare children for success in college and work. Under the Mathematics Standards, Math I, commonly known as Algebra I, is considered the gatekeeper for students who are college or career ready. There is a significant need to encourage and prepare a higher percentage of minority and non-traditional high school students to pursue careers in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) on a national level. High school freshman from schools the twenty-one county region that falls under the school divisions assigned to Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) consistently perform poorly in Math I on the End of Course (EOC) state test annually. This team will seek to examine the challenges to be overcome by eighth grade students to be successful on the Math I state assessment taken at the conclusion of their first semester in five high schools located in three selected school divisions that are in close proximity to ECSU. The Math Team will focus on the skills of North Carolina students that are required to successfully transition from Math 8 to Math I in the North Carolina Common Core Standards for Mathematics. Key Words: North Carolina Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (NCCCSS), End of Course Tests, STEM • SAMPLE AND PARTICIPANTS • The data collected and analyzed in this study comes from 27 mathematics teachers from three counties in northeastern North Carolina; Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington during the spring of 2014 school year. 44% of the teachers taught Math 8 and 56% of the teachers taught Math I. From the group of teachers 30% were male and 70% were female also 63% of the teachers had been teaching for ten or more years. 37% taught for ten or less years. Members of the ECSU CERSER Mathematics team collected the survey and interview responses from a majority of the teachers personally. Table VI: Chi Square Results Figure 3 CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC The The Chi-Square Test showed a comparison of observed and expected values the results are shown in the table above. From the results it can be shown that the survey instrument overall received close to the expected value for a majority of the responses. Of the 25 questions 60% were in the 90% range for expected response which is a high yielding result. FUTURE WORK The 2014 math research team plans to present findings of this research at local, regional, and state mathematics education conferences and submit this manuscripts for IEEE publication. Two goals came to play a central role, first identifying ways in which mathematics teachers use professional development in a specific academic and social context to assist their students. And second by identifying the knowledge, resources, experiences, and rationales mathematics teachers draw on to assist students in becoming successful on state assessments. FOCUS QUESTIONS Does an effective teacher philosophy of teaching and learning enhance student learning? How does understanding student knowledge of math content impact student success? What professional development activities assist in building student test taking skills ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to CERSER Principal Investigator, Dr. Linda B. Hayden and team mentor, Dr. Darnell Johnson for guidance and direction in this research process. This research reflected the contributions of many individuals from the early design to the final reporting phase. Thanks to mathematics teachers and building principals in the participating schools that made this study possible. An appreciation to the high schools that generously gave time to assistance in understanding the instructional process and provide critical follow-up data on student participants, as well as the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction for interest in and enthusiasm about the study. CONCLUSION The results of the questionnaire and survey concluded that math teacher effectiveness demonstrated contributions to growth in student learning. Good middle and high school teachers accomplish other things, including motivating and engaging students, acquiring new knowledge and skills, and collaborating with colleagues. But those accomplishments best serve their purpose when they lead teachers to improve student achievement. Professional development lead effective teachers to administer pretests at the beginning of the year or the start of a unit and then administer a post-test at the end, measuring students’ growth in learning along the way. They also provided richer information on what skills or topics students are or are not mastering. Formative assessments added the benefit of being tied directly to individual teachers and their classroom practiceMost education reformers agree that improving student learning defines effective teaching. The best way to improve teacher effectiveness is to provide teachers with support and guidance that are grounded in effectiveness—that is, which uses effectiveness data to enhance professional development, teacher education, and encourage student learning. QUESTIONNIARE INSTRUMENT The 2014 mathematics team used a questionnaire to assess the perceived challenges for successful transition from Math 8 to Math I. The information gained from the questionnaire was used to identify the best practices in Math I for North Carolina to improve student achievement on EOC assessments. With input from the teams mentor, the math team developed a 10-item questionnaire used for data collection with mathematics teachers from Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington Counties whose EOC Math I test scores for 2010-2012 where significantly low. SURVEY INSTRUMENT The information gained from the survey instrument was used to observe teacher best practices for Math I in North Carolina to improve student achievement on the EOC. The math team designed a 20-item survey instrument (figure 1) used for data collection with mathematics teachers from three counties in northeastern North Carolina with low EOC Math I scores for 2010 and 2012. The survey instrument consists of five sections; Understanding Student Culture, Formal and Informal Staff Development Participation, Student Response to Classroom Instruction, the last two sections both focused on Formal Staff Development. The math team used a 5-Likert scale for the survey participants were asked to select their level of agreement with each of the statements with 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree. PURPOSE The research purpose to find the best practices considered as solutions to meet the challenges of preparing Math I students from Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Washington County School districts to enhance the teaching strategies that enabled student success on the end of course state test. Understanding the factors that influence student success in Math I enhances opportunities for college entrance and career goals that tend to potentially increase participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). BEST PRACTICES Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are changing the educational system throughout the United States and are designed to improve student achievement, teachers need to find ways to provide instruction that keeps math scores high and still follow the CCSS standards. Best Practice #1: Selecting and using meaningful algebraic tasks Best Practice #2: Stimulating classroom discourse Best Practice #3: Creating a positive algebraic learning environment Best Practice #4: Analyzing teaching and learning in algebra 
Best Practice #5: Prioritize Classroom Information Best Practice #6: Discuss Lesson Plans with Other Teachers Best Practice #7: Provide Creative Educational Solutions • REFERENCES • National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. • A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. (1997, October). • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.  • Guide to teaching online courses. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 25, 2011 from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/onlineteachguide.pdf Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J., & Schuknecht, J. (2011).   • Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage. Spielhagen, F. R. (2006). Closing the achievement gap in math: The long-term effects of eighth-grade algebra. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 34–59.   • Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra. Reston, VA and Hillsdale, NJ: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Erlbaum. Walston, J., & CarlivatiMcCarroll, J. (2010).   • America’s high school graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP high school transcript study (NCES 2007-467). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2007467.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2009a).   • Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67,184–198.   • Smith, J. B. (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early algebra on long-term gains in mathematical attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18,141– 153. • Loveless, T. (2008). The misplaced math student: Lost in eighth-grade algebra.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Hammer, P. C., Hughes, G., McClure, C., Reeves, C., & Salgado, D. (2005). Rural teacher recruitment and retention practices: A review of the research literature, national survey of rural superintendents, and case studies of programs in Virginia. Charleston, WV: Edvantia.   • Hammer, P. C., Hughes, G., McClure, C., Reeves, C., & Salgado, D. (2005). Rural teacher recruitment and retention practices: A review of the research literature, national survey of rural superintendents, and case studies of programs in Virginia. Charleston, WV: Edvantia. • The Chicago Algebra Initiative. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 57,865–867. Jimerson, L. (2006). • Darling-Hammond, L. 2007. Recognizing and enhancing teacher effectiveness: A policymaker’s guide. In L. Darling-Hammond and C. D. Prince (eds.), Strengthening teacher quality in high-need schools—policy and practice. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers.